1 / 38

Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment

Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment. Nicole Musil February 11, 2010. Handout Information. Additional copies on NASP website nicole.musil@gmail.com. Areas to address ESY LD Regression. Current Study Procedures Results Conclusions. Overview. School Psychologists.

rose-ramsey
Download Presentation

Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment Nicole Musil February 11, 2010

  2. Handout Information • Additional copies on NASP website • nicole.musil@gmail.com

  3. Areas to address ESY LD Regression Current Study Procedures Results Conclusions Overview

  4. School Psychologists • Serve on IEP teams, contribute to ESY decisions • How are ESY decisions made (at your school)?

  5. Extended School Year • All students with disabilities must be considered • Annual data-driven team decision • Critical Skills • Regression (skill loss) • Recoupment (how long to regain lost skill)

  6. ESY Decisions- Type of Data • How do we predict whether an individual will regress? • Type of data required for ESY decisions • Individual progress-monitoring data • Normative comparison

  7. Learning Disability • Largest disability category • “Mild” - still need to consider ESY • Do some students with LD need ESY?

  8. LD Variation • Several studies question LD construct • Difference within group • IQ range 72-120 • Achievement similar to low achievers • Is LD just low achievement? Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., Lipsey, M.W., Roberts, P.H. (2001)

  9. Current Issues • Do students regress in fundamental skills? • “Year round” schools • Lengthening school year

  10. Average Number of Instructional Days in School YearBy Country International Average = 193 School Days/Year SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003

  11. School Day Length • KIPP Schools • Selective Enrollment • 7:30 am- 5:00 pm (9.5 hours) • Namaste Charter • Lottery • 7:45- 4:00 (8.25 hours) • includes family breakfast, recess, P.E.

  12. Current Study • What changes take place over summer? • Regression, improvement, no change • Recoupment • What factors influence regression? • LD status • Low achievement • Summer reading program

  13. R-CBM • Measures change in reading fluency over short periods of time • Brief, validated as comprehensive measure of reading (grades 3-5) • Also, older students with poorer ORF skills

  14. Background & Previous Research ESY, SLD, Summer Regression

  15. ESY • Purpose- preventing regression • History- case law for students with more severe disabilities

  16. Armstrong v. Kline (1979) • Class Action Lawsuit Decision, PA Circuit • Severe regression-recoupment disorders • Severe & Profound Impairments (cognitive) • Severe Emotional Disturbance • Autism • Physical Disabilities

  17. LD & Summer Regression • Studies have shown mixed results • Tests not designed to measure progress • Repeated measures of norm-referenced • Teacher-designed tests • Grade equivalents

  18. Allinder & Eicher, 1994 • Done with R-CBM • Found that students with SLD regressed • However, “recouped” skills within 6 weeks

  19. Gen. Ed.- Norms • Large data sets show regression over summer • Based on benchmarks (e.g. Aimsweb) • Problem- probes more difficult 3-4th grade

  20. Comparisons / Predictors • Learning disability status • Gender (more boys than girls with SLD) • Achievement level

  21. Hypotheses: Regression / Recoupment • SLD > gen. ed. peers • Males = females • Low achievers may regress more

  22. More Hypotheses • Summer program will prevent regression • Age / Grade • ORF increase • No differences in regression/recoupment • Regressors will recoup

  23. Current Study • 137 students, one school • Low poverty rate (<1% free/reduced) • Gen Ed and LD

  24. Data Collection • Pretest- end of school year • Post-test- Sept • Follow up- October • 14 regressors • ≥10% pretest score

  25. Results- Summer Regression • Whole group mean increase- 2.85 WRC • Significant • One group t-test • p < .01 for increase

  26. SEM • Range for probes used 9.5 to 10 WRC • Among the 44 who regressed • 27 ≤ SEM • 17 > SEM • Minimal change: 21 changed only 1-2 WRC

  27. SLD status • Only 4 out of 137 students • Lower pre-test & post-test than peers • Gen. sample pre 128; post 131 • SLD 102 for both • ANOVAs insignificant

  28. SLD recoupment • 1 of the 4 students with SLD regressed • Recouped significantly • Mean scores • Pre-test 142 • Post-test 124 • Follow-up 141

  29. Sex Differences • Males’ ORF < Females’ for pre and post • Females 133 pre; 136 post • Males 121 pre; 124 post • ANOVAs lacked significance for pre, post, and difference • Both sexes showed similar recoupment

  30. Low Achievement • Defined as < benchmark at pretest • Showed similar improvements • Benchmark 147 pre; 149 post • Low 87 pre; 90 post • ANOVAs not significant for pre/post diff.

  31. Low Achievement & Recoupment • Only 3 out of 14 “regressors” low ach. • 2 of the 3 recouped (follow-up > post-test)

  32. Summer Program Attendance • 17 total students • 9 improved over summer • 5 changed minimally (1-2 WRC) • 3 regressed, significantly • All 3 regressors recouped • ANOVA for pre-post change insignificant

  33. Age / Grade • Average WRC increased by grade • ANOVAs significant • Pre-test alone p < 0.004 • Post-test alone p < 0.010 • ANOVA insignificant for pre-test to post-test difference

  34. General Recoupment • 14 students regressed • Improved significantly after 4 weeks • Paired-samples t-test p < .000002

  35. Anticipated Results • Summer program –> maintenance or improvement • Regressors recouped after 4 weeks back

  36. Unexpected Results • None of the factors studies significantly impacted regression • Instead ORF increased (or changed minimally) over summer

  37. Results & Conclusions • Due to size & characteristics of the sample • Low poverty rate • Few students with LD • Unknown summer activities (reading, etc) • This study’s results not necessarily generalizable!

  38. Special Education ESY decisions Normative comparison General Education Summer programs “Year round” schooling Implications for Practice: Data-based decision making

More Related